While I was in Kyrgyzstan I rarely followed, or cared, about American politics. JG and I have very different political views. I'm a registered Republican, he's a registered Democrat. (Though he'll argue that I'm actually a Libertarian.) We rarely talk about politics, but we did tonight.
I listened unbiased and, overall, I thought the State of the Union address was well done. I was most impressed with his reiterating of parents' responsibility for their children's education and how we need to foster more respect for teachers. Likewise, when it comes time to visit family on the East Coast, how much more appealing would travel by high-speed rail be? America is most innovative when it's driven by incentive. When the stakes are most high, Americans have dug deep and pulled off the seemingly impossible. The sentiment of his speech was well-timed and I hope fostered renewed commitment for compromise across the aisle. Also, I absolutely loved how the President publicly called out educational institutions who have continued to ban ROTC programs and military recruiters after reiterating his promise of the repeal of 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell.' Also, his salmon joke expressing how there are too many government agencies involved in similar missions was pretty clever. (One when it's in fresh water, another when it's in the ocean, and yet another after it's smoked.)
Now the ugly. His analogy -- an overloaded plane flying without an engine that will eventually crash -- used to illustrate how useless slashing a budget is if the wrong spending cuts are made, was very hard to swallow. Any time I visualize a plane crash, in any context, I see the second plane hitting the Twin Towers live. Fair? Probably not, but I'm sure I'm not the only American who feels this way. Additionally, the President went out of his way talking about budget cuts to point out the Department of Defense would not be immune to fiscal responsibility. Unfortunately, the President did this without clarifying our Nation's security will not be jeopardized. This comes just days after learning China most likely developed its most capable fighter with U.S. stealth technology - one piece of F-117 scrap at a time from the fields of Balkan farmers in 1999. Then later the President said the military needed to have the best possible equipment to do its mission ... begs the question: Is that possible if our budget is cut too?
All the talk about future and budget has made me wonder if we're doing everything possible to maximize our family's wealth by spending and saving wisely. Last year, I would have felt funny using the word 'wealth,' but after six months as a guest in Kyrgyzstan I can argue that the poorest of Americans are wealthy in comparison.
I agree with your views, Jennifer. What irked me a bit was when he made the statement "let us serve the, as well as they have served us" and I am sitting here thinking.. well, where were the military pay raises? Oh wait, it was there but the lowest in history.
ReplyDeleteThe F-117A's first flight was in 1981...so China is a little behind us there. They are also behind us in defense spending. According to the SECDEF's report to congress, China spent over $150 billion in 2009. That's a high estimate, but regardless that's still well below over our 2009 $600+ billion. We are asking $150 billion for Afghanistan alone for FY11. We spend more on "defense" than any other country in the world by far. Should our pay raise be so low? I don't think so personally. Only $150 billionish is allocated to military personnel in Secretary Gates FY11 budget proposal. It just blows my mind though how the number two competition spends several hundreds of billions of dollars less than us on defense and people find it so taboo to talk about defense cuts. Also, we are funding China's war building efforts in a major way, walk into Wal-Mart sometime or try to buy an American made coffee maker. I don't agree with Buzz on everything though, so don't give him the wrong idea ;)
ReplyDelete